/lit/ - Literature

>>6142811
Human rights are not derived from judeo-christian ethics, and judeo-christian ethics are a joke.

Ethics are complicated and because they are complicated, christians say what they always say, "God did it." or in this case "the bible did it." and even atheists who are at a loss to explain complex sociological schema just resort to saying. "Well shit, it must have been the bible, since Christianity was dominant in so much of history"

Except that is a ethnocentric fallacy, which completely fails to account for morality and ethics in times before the judeo-christian religion came into existence, and morality in places where it was completely unheard of. I mean you can't possibly be one of those people who believes that the indochina region wouldn't have any morality if it wasn't for missionaries? Or that the greeks were without morality? Never mind if their morality lines up 100% with "christian" or contemporary morality. Just focus on the fact that the idea that without the judeo-christian hegemony no morality would exist at all is blatantly stupid.

"So damn," you say, "Well, okay, the judeo-christian religion didn't invent ethics. but you have to admit that it forms the basis of contemporary morality, right?"

No, take a look at some of the 613 commandments in the bible, and see how many you actually believe are fundamental to a moral code. "No wearing clothes made of two different types of cloth" that's real helpful isn't it?

So what is your argument then? that human rights aren't derived directly from the tenants of Christianity but instead the vague general tone of the bible, the general feeling "God commands you to do good" when you ignore all the slavery, the rape, the genocide, and the barbarism? That's cherry picking, selective bias. It's not the bible influencing modern morality, instead, it is modern morality influencing what parts of the bible people like to choose to adhere to.